Ask Commentarama

Today we announce a new feature: Ask Commentarama. You ask questions, and I’ll see what I can do about answering them. Think of it like an e-mail bag, where you get to help shape the content of Commentarama. Cool huh? All topics are welcome! Today’s we have two questions. The first is about Evan Bayh. The second is about the Mount Vernon Statement.

Q. What does Commentarama think about Evan Bayh's retirement from the Senate? Will he run for president?

This question comes from “Mike” and it’s an excellent question. The media is currently reporting that Bayh said that he would definitely not run for president. But that’s inaccurate. Bayh was not asked simply if he intended to run for President. He was asked if he would switch parties and run for president against Obama. To that, he said, “no possibility whatsoever.”

And make no mistake he is positioning himself as a future Democratic candidate. For example, those complaints about “partisanship” are actually attacks on the Republicans. Indeed, he has been careful to add that “I’m not angry at my party.” Similarly, he’s praising Obama’s agenda and Obama’s “sincere” efforts at bipartisanship.

So why resign? Consider these facts:

1. Given the pro-Republican tidal wave that’s about to descend on conservative states in 2010, the chances are good that Bayh would lose his seat. If he loses, his chances of becoming President die immediately. But by retiring now he can avoid the stigma of defeat by claiming that he retired out of principle while he was on top -- spreading the word that polls (which you will never see) had him 20 points ahead, are part of this strategy.

2. By retiring, he saves himself $13 million dollars, which goes a long way to starting a race for President.

3. Even if he wins, the next Senate will need to make some very difficult choices. They will need to raise taxes, which will kill his support among moderates, and/or cut spending dramatically, which will kill his support among progressives. There will also be very unpopular decisions vis-à-vis Iran, health care, and environmental issues. By retiring now, he can avoid responsibility for those choices, but still later claim that he would have supported the successful ones.

Thus, I would suspect that once the current storm has passed, Bayh will start campaigning for the Democratic Party’s 2016 nomination as an untainted reformer who was drawn back into politics “to clean up the mess his successors created.” However, he may be underestimating the stranglehold the extreme left has on the Democratic Party primary process. That’s what undid Hillary Clinton and it will keep him from ever getting the nomination. . . unless he does like John Edwards and makes a hard left turn.

Q. What does Commentarama think about the Mount Vernon Statement?

Tough question. For those who don’t know, the Mount Vernon Statement is a manifesto being prepared by various conservative heavy weights (e.g. Brent Bozell, Grover Norquist, Ed Meese, Edwin Feulner, etc.). It is described as follows:

"It's a philosophical foundation, based on the concept of constitutional conservatism. It's written so most conservatives can say, 'Yeah, this is just what I think.'"

So far so good. I’m a firm believer that conservatives need to come together with a statement of principles to help define what it means to be a conservative. Otherwise, people who are not really conservatives can continue to claim that the label applies to their pet peeves.

BUT, based on the little bit I’ve seen, this document suffers from the same problem that causes most activist-driven proclamations to fail: it’s written by people who can’t relate to non-activists. Here is the introductory statement:

In recent decades, America's principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn't this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature's God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man's self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

Uhm, no. This is unreadable. In trying to parrot the language of the 1770’s, they’ve made a document that sounds stilted and out of place today. It’s also hopelessly vague. Notice that it does not define what “self-evident truths” formed this country; there is considerable disagreement about that (even at the time). It meanders and it’s theoretical to the point of being esoteric. Did your blood boil when you read this. . . did you even bother finishing it? Finally, it just confirms the stereotype that conservatives are hopelessly stuck in the past. Indeed, notice that the main opposition seems to be to “change” and “new” ideas. This is the sort of argument conservatives make that just p*sses me off. New issues arise everyday as the human race continues to do new things. Opposing new things is luddite and ignorance of the highest order. It also leaves the left offering the only possible solutions. So stop. What conservatives should be talking about is how to apply conservative principles to new issues, not whining how things were better back when.

So my answer is this -- good idea, poor execution.


That’s our first Ask Commentarama installment. Here’s the deal. If you have any questions, e-mail them to me at Commentarama@yahoo.com or leave them in the comments below (I’ll check back throughout the week.) Then, next Wednesday, I’ll see what I can do about providing answers.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bye Bayh Bye

Today’s announcement of the retirement of Evan Bayh was a shocker. Although we told you a couple weeks ago that his seat wasn’t as safe as it first appeared, no one expected him to quit. This decision has sent shock waves through the Democratic Party and may signal the death of the Democratic Party.

Bayh’s Decision

Bayh won his senate seat in 1998 after serving as the governor of Indiana. He comes from an Indiana family dynasty, with his father serving three terms in the Senate from 1963 until 1981. He was considered a moderate and fairly popular in the state.

However, he also was never close to the senate leadership and he was not considered a team player. He made a failed run for the presidency in 2008 and has been passed over three times as a Vice Presidential nominee.

Until today, it was assumed by all that he would remain in the Senate for many years to come, where he had become an outspoken voice for moving the Democratic Party back from the brink of insanity and toward the center. Indeed, prior to this announcement, he had raised nearly $13 million for his re-election campaign and had already ordered television ads.

But trouble was looming. If you believe Bayh and the Democrats, polling shows Bayh with a significant lead over his opponents. Yet, if you will recall, we pointed out a couple weeks ago that Bayh was finding himself in a surprisingly close race. According to Rasmussen, Bayh would have lost to Congressman Mike Pence if he chose to run, and was only leading likely challenger former-Congressman John Hostettler by a 44% to 41% margin. As we noted, any incumbent with less than 50% support must be considered endangered.

Then, about a week ago, retired Senator Dan Coats decided that he would run against Bayh (unlike Rudy Giuliani who won’t run in New York. . . jerk). Despite the Democrats blasting Coats in a series of nasty advertisements, the writing was on the wall so Bayh suddenly discovered that he doesn’t like politics.

“My decision should not be interpreted for more than it is, a very difficult, deeply personal one. I am an executive at heart. I value my independence. I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology. . . . To put it in words I think most people can understand: I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress.”

Now it’s been revealed that Bayh’s wife has made millions of dollars over the past couple years sitting on the boards of health care companies and evil insurance companies.

The Indiana Race

Unlike the retirement of Christopher Dodd, Bayh’s retirement will benefit the Republicans. Dodd, an unlikable man plagued by corruption scandals, had no chance of winning re-election. Connecticut, where he held his seat, was a far-left leaning state that would rather elect Hitler than a Republican. But Dodd, apparently, was worse than Hitler, so the people of Connecticut were preparing to toss him out. When he announced that he would step aside, the Connecticut Democratic Party simply inserted a generic Democrat in his place and suddenly their 20% loss in the polls turned into a 20% lead. Indiana is different.

First, Indiana is a rather conservative state. Bayh only managed to remain competitive in the state because he was a moderate Democrat with a strong family name and two popular stints as governor. With Bayh leaving the race, Indiana will have a tendency to shift to the right, not the left.

Moreover, the Democrats have no one of Bayh’s stature to replace Bayh. The likely replacement for Bayh will be either House Democrat Baron Hill or Brad Ellsworth. Both are considered moderates, though neither is in the popularity league of Bayh. Moreover, if Bayh’s surrender was motivated by an electorate that has turned against the Democrats, as it appears, then it won’t matter which Democrat they run.

Yet, by running either Hill or Ellsworth (Ellsworth is the establishment favorite), the Democrats also put their House seats at risk. Thus, look for the Republicans to have a distinct advantage now in the race for Bayh’s seat and look for them to pick up another House seat as a result of Bayh’s decision.

The Democratic Party Dies

Finally, we come to the real impact of this decision, which goes way beyond a single senate seat. Yes, from a technical perspective, this will improve the Republicans’ chances of retaking the senate, though mathematically that remains unlikely. But this decision has ripples far beyond simple senate math.

Bayh is one of the few moderates left in the Democratic Party. Most of these moderates are quitting during this election cycle. So far, this could be explained for one reason or another -- like the health care vote or scandal. But Bayh is the first who seemed to skate through the Democrats’ agenda without too much harm. That he is quitting foretells a potentially massive shift to the right by the electorate in 2010, where only Democrats in the most left-wing of districts and states will be safe. We will have to watch for more signs of this.

Interestingly, even Obama himself apparently tried to talk Bayh out of quitting, but Bayh refused.

And that takes us to the more important issue. The frustration shown by moderates like Bayh, who reached the point that he would willing give up his career, tells us just how poisonous the inner workings of the Democratic Party have become. Bayh’s retirement shows us that moderates no longer have a home in the Democratic Party.

The media loves to focus on in-fighting within the Republican Party but turns a blind eye to the absolute war going on in Democratic ranks. It’s a blood bath. With a leadership dominated by far-left whackos (not just ideologues, but crazy ideologues), with Rahm Emanuel’s “f*cking retard” activists promising to run ads against moderate Democrats, with the unions threatening to withhold their support unless they immediately get some union-a-topia, with Pelosi treating her moderates like cannon fodder, and with the party’s spokespeople slandering the American people on a daily basis, it’s become clear that the Democratic Party has drifted into a fantasy land of hatred and score-settling.

With the moderates abandoning the party rather than fighting for its soul, there is a serious chance that the Democrats will simply continue to wallow on the left no matter what happens. This means the Democratic Party will no longer be capable of obtaining anything near majority support, and it is likely to lose more and more seats in the coming elections until it is a rump party at best. Moreover, with the moderates leaving the party, there will be no one to pull them back from the brink for at least a generation.

That’s why Bayh’s announcement means so much more than one senate seat.


P.S. I apologize for any pain the NSYNC reference may have caused you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid’s Mistake On The Public Option

Not a full post tonight, but I wanted to update everyone on Harry Reid’s public option mistake and on who is important in the Senate right now (** cough cough call them cough **). As you know, I wrote the other day that I thought they would have a problem passing the Baucus bill. One of the reasons listed was the public option debate. Guess what. . .

You may have heard that yesterday, Harry Reid announced that the Baucus bill would include a public option. In fact, he selected a public option that states could “opt out of”, and that was that -- the end. At the time, the left declared this a victory and their friends in the media trumpeted the coming of ObamaCare.

But as I watched Harry give his press conference, it was clear that he was nervous. Sure, he was angry -- lashing out at Republicans, and he was smug, but he refused to answer whether he was sure that he had the 60 votes he needs for cloture, i.e. to prevent a filibuster. He had clearly gambled.

Not more than five minutes after his lips stopped flapping, CNBC announced that Olympia Snowe was very upset by this. And while she did not say that she would not vote closure, she indicated that she could not support a bill with an “opt out” or “opt in” provision. Whoops. (FYI, Reid then attacked her, commenting that she has been “frightened” into dropping her support. Sounds sexist to me.)

This morning, Joe Lieberman, who is fast becoming my favorite Democrat, announced that he would not support this bill. But even more so, he noted that he would filibuster the bill if it continues to include a public option:

“I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now, I will vote against cloture. I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Honestly, Lieberman’s opposition was unexpected. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled. I just didn’t think he would stand in the way of this.

With Lieberman and Snowe bolting, Reid cannot bring the bill for a vote because he’s only got 59 votes. Even worse for Reid, Lieberman and Snowe’s defections are now encouraging others to start wavering. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) both had already voiced reservations and have now confirmed their reservations (though they have stopped short of saying they won’t vote for the bill). But now, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) says that he is unhappy with the bill and will seek to make changes on the Senate floor. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind) also has voiced concerns over the bill and now will not say which way he will vote on cloture (Bayh is upset about $40 billion in taxes imposed on medical equipment providers).

So while this battle is far from over, it looks like Harry’s declaration proved to be a total disaster. And I suspect that the longer this goes without resolution, the greater the chance that more Democrats will revolt -- not to mention that they still need to merge this with a House bill that is entirely unpalatable to most of the Senate.

If you feel like calling or writing anyone in Congress, these would be the people. Tell them that you see a vote for closure as a vote for the public option. . . and you don’t want a public option.

In the meantime, get some popcorn, kick back, and watch the fall out from Harry’s bomb.

** UPDATE: Olympia Snowe has now said that she will vote against cloture. Thus, Reid does not have the sixty votes he needs.


(FYI, I will put up an article outlining why the Baucus bill can be repealed tomorrow night. Thanks for your patience.)


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...